Do good graphics really matter?

[Isla]

Most people here-from what I can gather-still play and idolize old games consoles. On those machines graphics were nothing compared to what we have now on the newest generation consoles.

So I propose to you a question.
Do graphics in games really matter to you?

For me it's kind of half and half. I'm at awe with good graphics and they make me realise how much gaming has come along.
But more importantly the game can have the best graphics in the world but if the story is terrible what's the point in playing?

It seems that in the case of most games these days developers just can't meet both parts.
Sure there are great games out there with great stories but not as many as there should be.

Whereas if I turned back and played the GBA which I am right now I'm more excited by these old games than I am with the ones on the market at the moment.

How do you feel about graphics?

 

[Mechsoap]

They are a nice bonus.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

They are important but not the be all and end all of games. Like you said the game could have the best graphics ever conceived my the mind of man but if the story and game play is rubbish...it isn't going to be a good game. However on the flip side the game could have the most awesome story and game play but if the graphics are so woeful that you cant see or understand what's going on properly then again it's not going to be a good game.

 

[Haxxle]

I don't really care much for graphics but I do use it as a leverage in a debate on which 'so and so' is better, and use it as a standing point whenever I'm trying to persuade a casual gamer to play 'so and so' game.

 

[Haz88]

I've never had a top-tier gaming computer, having only recently upgraded to rig capable of playing Dawn of War 2, so in short, no graphics doesn't matter much to me. I tend to like style, which is why I still think that Majora'a Mask still looks great while I think Fist of the North Star looks kinda crap.
Style over realism any day

 

[Don't taze me bro]

It really depends. Graphics with a good artistic style can really stand the test of time. Some Snes and PS1 2d games play great, and still look good today. Early 3d games however from the PS1 and N64, I simply try to avoid so to not tarnish the great memories I have of some of them.

Funnily enough though, graphics (or lack of) is regularly a common complaint, but it can just often be the 'eye of the beholder'. I mean, I have seen plenty of gripes about how Marvel vs Capcom 3 looks. I picked it up today, and I really dig the artistic style.

 

[Proarcher]

Look at Minecraft. The graphics are only there to reinforce the games mechanics and it's one of the most popular PC titles around right now - Hope that clears things up. ^^

 

[DEAD34345]

Of course, a game with good graphics is always better than the exact same game, but with worse graphics. However for me game-play is a lot more important, to the point that i think Dwarf Fortress, Liberal Crime Squad and Nethack are all far, far better games than Call of Duty or Crysis. (All of those are ascii roguelikes with essentially no graphics).

 

[New Troll]

Definitely matters to me. Helps with submergion. Draw me in. There are still tons of older games I love and still play, but most are strategy games where graphics don't really affect gameplay.

Prime example, one of my favorite games of all time is Vice City, yet even though it's only one generation old, I cannot play it anymore after playing this gen's offerings. Just can't feel it anymore.

 

[Mallefunction]

Personally, I cannot replay some of my older games now because I've been so spoiled not by graphic quality, but by camera controls. Graphics don't matter. They are nice, but they've never broken a game for me.

 

[Corpse XxX]

If good graphics is an option, i want it..

But the thing that annoys me the most, is when people walk about and they seem to float above the pavement..
And when two objects/people interact with eachother, that they float into one another and kinda melt together... Like for instance a hand going half way through the other person if he is to for instance say giving the other fellaw a pat on the back..

That i don't like, seen lots of it in Mass Effect 2.. Like everything is made of jelly and ice cream..

 

[Scabadus]

They do matter to me, so much as I like some nice shiny graphics and with all other things bein equal I'd buy the game that looked nicer. For gaming as a whole, Crysis proved that you can get away with only average gameplay if your game looks really, really nice.

But they're not the end of everything, I own a couple of games that look terrible but are still really, really fun to play (mostly MMOs) and I own a few where I'd been playing them for months without thinking about their graphics before suddenly realising that they looked amazing (Sins of a Solar Empire).

 

[Wutaiflea]

Well, they kind of do matter, and kind of don't.

I don't mind playing old games with outdated graphics as long as the quality of the gameplay and story are good. I've been playing a lot of games that are 10+ years old of late, and their graphical limitations have made bugger all influence on my enjoyment of them.

That said, when I do play old games, I expect everything to be clear and distinguishable, particularly when it comes to menu graphics. My husband tried to get me playing the original Fallout, but to be honest, I found it murky and hard to make out.

Bizarrely enough, I also find it hard to motivate myself to play old games with shitty graphics that aren't colourful. I seem to have this mental block on retro gaming where I believe everything should be nice and day-glo. I honestly have no explanation for that.

 

[Sonicron]

Let me put it this way: In this day and age, I will be put off by a game that looks like arse, especially if it's a game I don't know anything about. However, if there's a particular buzz surrounding the game and the word is that it's worth playing due to good atmosphere, story, character development, gameplay etc. I'll try it despite its graphical presentation.
Graphics aren't 100% essential to a game, and there are a lot of titles on consoles two or three steps removed from the current generation that are much more fun to play than some of the stuff that's on the store shelves right now; however, with the technical possibilities of today, there's really no excuse for bad graphics in a brand-new game anymore, except if it was made with a small budget.

 

[lasherman]

Yes, they absolutely matter. I think the problem, however, stems from people equating "good" graphics with "realistic" graphics. To me, "good" just means it suits the style and feel of the game, like Minecraft.

Imagine switching the graphical styles of Minecraft and, say, whatever the latest of those Call of Honour: Medal of Battlefield FPS clones is. Would you enjoy either one as much as you do now, if CoD had low-polly stick men for characters, and everything was covered in low-quality textures? Or if Minecraft had ultra-polished monsters, dramatic lighting, realistic splashes of blood and picture-perfect scenery?

The same thing goes for any number of Indie games, like Angry Birds and Super Meat Boy. Funny, cartoony graphics that suit the mood and feel of those specific games, which would be drastically changed if they had decided to go with the gritty, realistic graphics everybody pictures when somebody says "good graphics"

 

[CaptQuakers]

For me yes. I can play a game with poor graphics If It has a GOOD story. But Graphics make everything look nice which helps with the story. All these old game would be more fun with better Graphics imho.

 

[AwesomeFerret]

To be honest, it depends on the type of graphics, and how they are used.

The graphics in games like, say, The Call of Duty franchise might be called "realistic", but I would say they look terrible and instantly dated, and they don't really add much to the experience. They're there for show, and nothing much else. But then compare them to a game like Okami. The game is on the Wii, and yet still has some of the most beautiful graphics ever to grace a game. It doesn't look realistic, but it looks damned amazing, and really draws the player into the world. In a game with a style like Okami's, the graphics are pretty important- they have just as much character as anything else in the game, and really boost the experience.

In short, I think it has a lot to do with what you consider "good graphics" to be. If you consider them to be graphics that really enhance the actual game, then yes they are incredibly important, and they do matter. If you consider them to be flashy and "realistic", then not so much.

 

[Phishfood]

Graphics do matter, they just aren't a priority. Personally its gameplay > story > graphics. I happily fire up the old x-com games, doom... heck I downloaded dosbox and dug out the old text games and theme park around christmas.

 

[jamesworkshop]

God I wish this topic would end

are graphics important in a primarily visual medium?

answers on the back of a postcard